Ballots to remain uncounted in MI and Stein blocked in Philly. Guest: Election integrity, law expert Paul Lehto says this proves 'only option is to get it right on Election Night'. Also: Trump taps climate denier, fossil-fuel tool for EPA...

As controversy swirls again around House Speaker Dennis Hastert and whether he is or isn't under investigation by the DoJ on bribery related charges as ABC News is reporting (and standing by), now might be a good time to remind of you this earlier exclusive which The BRAD BLOG reported in February concerning FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' charges that Hastert may be involved with yet another bribery scandal.

In light of today's new story, it may well be worth taking a look back at that previous piece including a detailed statement from Edmonds wherein she calls on Hastert to "come clean" in regard to $500k in un-itemized campaign donations and his relationships with various Turkish interest groups.

Hastert,.. he's got ten large reach-in freezers full of
hard cash. He wants to defrost it so he can depo it
in a secret bank account in the Grand Caymans. He
does not what this to come out in the press,.. until
he has completed this bank transfer transactions.

A den of common thieves and banditos.

Grand Lord,..
J Dennis Hastert,...
of the 14th District of Illinois,..

Anyone want to defend the two-party system now? Both parties are using a separation-of-powers argument to protest the raid on Jefferson's office, even though the guy got caught with $90,000 next to the pork chops in his fricking refrigerator.

If ABC's report is right, Hastert's motives would seem clear. But something in my conspiratorial subconscious mind tells me this is all Karl Rove at work. Raid Jefferson's office...demonstrate that crookedness is not limited to Republicans...then plant a story with ABC that Hastert is being investigated, too...deny the story...make ABC apologize...Jefferson does a frog-march...Hastert is cleared...Republicans get credit for attacking corruption...Democrats look bad.

It might be time for Sibel Edmonds to speak up again. She seems to have the goods on Denny.

I completely lost respect for Hastert when he started to put out rumors that George Soros got some of his money in the drug trade. I guess even the media wouldn't bite on that one. Don't ask me why! They haven't been adverse to very much cheap bait.

Dredd, I wonder who would be the speaker of the House if the Dems took over, Kucinich would be nice, but alas
the "voting process" will prevent any of that from happening. Even if it did happen, it would be a Dem/Corporate shill assigned as speaker

Bush, Cheney, Hastert, Stevens, Rice, Snow, Rumsfeld, Gonzales. It would be hard to write a script in which eight less qualified people were in line to run the country. The history books will not be kind.

If I had to choose between them, I'd pick Condi. At least she's intelligent, albeit compromised by having to do the neo-cons' bidding for so long. But behind Bush we also have a paranoid alcoholic in failing health, a former wrestling coach with ethical questions surrounding him, an old man who hates government and builds bridges to nowhere with public funds, an ex-C.E.O. whose company lost money every year but one under his watch while he took out millions every year, another old guy who completely bollixed up an illegal war, and an affirmative-action law appointee who redefined torture, circumvented the Geneva Convention, and approves of illegal spying.

For Democrats and pragmatic folk, the political level is predominant (LET'S GET CONTROL OF CONGRESS FIRST; MEANWHILE WE HAVE TO DENY ANY INTENTION OF IMPEACHING BUSH, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS BAD AND GIVES THE REPUBLICANS A TALKING POINT).

For Independents and idealists like myself, the legal and Constitutional side is more important (IF BUSH VIOLATED HIS OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, AND/OR IF HE BROKE THE LAW, HE MUST BE IMPEACHED, REGARDLESS OF WHO CONTROLS CONGRESS AND TO HELL WITH THE POLITICS INVOLVED).

If I were a Democratic congressman, I'd pick the first. If I were teaching kids about civics in school, I'd pick the second.

If the people remain as pissed off at the republican dictatorship as they are now, and if the machines piss off enough people that paper ballots and hand counts finally prevail, the scenario is clear.

Bush will be impeached in the House, but will not be convicted in the Senate. The latter takes 2/3 of the Senate and there will not be enough votes.

I think the courts could do better.

If the courts will hold the detainment without court access, without charges, without counsel, without visitation, but with torture of detainees and "enemy combatants" to be illegal, will hold the warrantless spying on Americans illegal, and a few other things, that would be preferred over impeachment but no conviction.

If the courts will put Rove, Libby, Safavian, and some of the other leaders of the republican dictatorship behind bars, that is in the proper direction.

Libby and Rove should be impeached, and they may also be convicted in the Senate. If so, preznit blush cannot pardon them.

He can pardon anyone who has not been impeached and convicted by the congress and then convicted also by the courts. He can pardon anyone who has only been convicted by the courts.

It is a bit complicated and with this current fiasco there are no quick fixes or easy solutions. It is easier to talk about it than it is to remedy it.

#14 Robert,
I'd agree with you if not for the consequences Dredd has delineated. I don't think that dems are choosing to deny the intention to impeach just because it sounds bad & gives the r's talking points; I hope not, anyway, since those are terrible reasons!
I hope that they just prefer to wait rather than be our Antigone, rushing in for honor's sake & thereby putting the noose around the neck of the country.

Dredd,
A couple of questions: when a person goes to vote, can they legally just insist on a paper ballot? Can I walk in & just say "I want to vote on a piece of paper, thanks"?
Seriously. I really don't know. (I seem to have this recurring problem of sounding like a smartass)

Re people staying pissed off, I think they will, but it's not enough to be pissed off, right? Our options are so limited:
protest (largely ineffectual),
activism (sure FEELS like the first one),
impeachment, indictment (both up to others, a good percentage of whom are likely complicit),
what's left? Apathy & despair? Copious quantities of beer?

"...If the courts will put Rove, Libby, Safavian, and some of the other leaders of the republican dictatorship behind bars..."
Boy, that is still one BIG 'if'. Not to mention a drop in the bucket, although yes, a good start.

Let me ask you, I can't remember if you've weighed in on this already..you likely have, but:
Do you think people like Gore, Dean, Feingold, any credible people in the spotlight, should TALK about impeachment as a possible outcome of investigation? Or avoid it completely?

There's one valid reason (outside of political considerations), and only one, to refrain from talking about impeachment NOW. That is, if any doubt remains about whether Bush and others have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Speaking for myself, I wasn't convinced six months ago. But illegal spying on Americans, in violation of F.I.S.A. and even as Bush himself was giving speeches assuring us that spying does require a warrant, was enough. By any interpretation of the phrase, that's a high crime and a felony. Denial of rights to detainees might qualify, but that invites arguments about whether foreigners are entitled to equal protection under our laws. More iffy, I think.

I'm willing to bet that off the record, at least half of Congress would agree Bush has committed at least one high crime. On the record, nobody says so, though Conyers, Feingold, and a few others might be close. This means political factors are still predominant. What else is new in the municipal bidet called Washington, D.C., where corruption is the hottest merchandise and politics the currency?

Dredd focuses on what courts would find, as if court findings would precede impeachment. My understanding is that it's just the reverse, that impeachment is the required first remedy, and only after conviction by the Senate (by 2/3 vote) and removal from office may a president or other high official be prosecuted criminally. Civil actions are different, as Clinton found to his discomfort.

You know all those republicans who are suddenly so helpfully opining how foolhardy it is for dems to talk about impeaching our fine president?
Hidden in their rhetoric, Pitt has discovered the perfect slogan for their upcoming election campaigns:

It is a complex situation and I, like the rest of us, have my wish list. But hope is strong too.

With the republicans so strongly in power and the dems and indies so out of power, we only have elections to look to.

And we are realizing even that may have been stolen from us by three suspicious companies (ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia).

I hesitate to think talking about impeachment would be all that edifying, because, due to the line up that would replace Bush and Cheney, it would be a bluff of sorts.

And the people just want straight talk. They want to hear that the government will be cleaned up, war will cease, and our money will be spent on fixing the disasters the republican dictatorship has forced upon us.

I think that the congress will get back to its oversight. The dems will once again chair committees (e.g. Conyers), and will have meeting rooms, hearings, and they will subpoena, subpoena, and subpoena to get the truth out.

And there will be special prosecutors. That is about the way it should go.

The president will be reeled in, and so will the vice president. It will be so different.

I have not thought much about '08 cause I have realized that the '06 election is the last great hope to stop the republican dictatorship in its tracks.

I think the issue of paper ballots depends on the law of the state you vote in. One answer will not fit all. Absentee ballots may be the way to guarantee a paper ballot.

#23 RLM,
I believe you're right about impeachment having to come first by law.
That doubt you speak about is why the country would be best served by impeachment being employed only after a very thorough investigation; the fly-in-the-ointment there, however, being corruption within the system.

Don't you think, though, that impeachment NOW, if it resulted in anyone from #'s 3-8 on Dredd's list becoming president, would be just as disastrous as the present situation? And would mean another 4-8 MORE years of lawlessness, torture, stripping away of rights & all the rest of it?

CANADA...VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE, SPECIAL ELECTION. The house and Senate is so corrupt, they are ruining our country while we look for small offerings of hope every day. Let's think about the future and see that this never happens again. It's the only way to change the war machine that is US. What about a liberal and conservative party. Both parties have changed so much as to be unrecognizeable. If Dean had not been hijacked by the media he would be our pres. At least he was fiscally conservative. Not as progressive as I would like. NEITHER party talks about jobs and wages. Clinton gave us NAFTA, welfare reform and three strikes and you are out. We have surpassed Russia with the highest prison population in the world. Let's think about not only fair elections but a fair govt. The whole DOD is a gigantic money hole. The Iraq war could have paid for universal health care and a good educational system. Tax dollars should go to the citizens of the country and not just line Bushco, friends pockets.

Joan, if Bush and Cheney were impeached, and Hastert/Stevens/Rice etc. succeeded to the presidency, so be it. The last thing Congress should ever do (unless the Constitution has no relevance) is say, "We can't impeach ____, because ____ will be worse." That isn't governing by the Constitution, it's writing history before the fact.

Impossible as it might be to believe, a Denny Hastert or a Ted Stevens could be a decent president (certainly better than Bush). When Garfield was assassinated in 1881, his successor was Chester A. Arthur, widely thought of as a political hack (he'd been fired by Hayes as N.Y. Port Collector for ethical violations). Guess what? Arthur's term was excellent. Even Mark Twain, who had ridiculed him at first, said he was surprised.

The point is, if we Bush or Cheney it should only be based on the merits of the accusation, not on the consequences of the process. That might sound lofty and idealistic, but otherwise the Constitutional process is forfeit.

Robert #29,
You may be right about Hastert's potential (though I can't help but doubt it! & anyway he seems to be a bit entangled in his own troubles at the moment...I wonder how much cash is stuffed in HIS freezer...).

But were the impeachment process begun now, they wouldn't be convicted so the succession question would be moot anyway.

TALKING about impeachment, though, is not the same thing and would, I still maintain, be a GOOD thing.
I really think a few things need to be hammered home to people:
that impeachment is a legitimate part of our legal system;
that the lame pronouncement "impeachment would be bad for the country" is ludicrous in the extreme. THIS ADMINISTRATION is bad for the country;
that no one, including the president, is above the law;
that our system is supposed to be based on checks & balances, not secrecy & law-breaking, etcetera.

I also think dems should not be afraid to bring up the fact, with documentation at hand if they do, that this president called the Constitution "a Goddamn piece of paper". Again, things that are TRUE should not be avoided. Is that "dirty politics"? NO. It's calling a man on his blatant, highly offensive hypocrisy!
This man has been successfully masquerading as a God-fearing Christian while practically dragging Jesus through the mud. Frankly I don't know why mobs of good Christians are not storming the White House with torches & pitchforks.

Dredd #25, Thanks for addressing my ballot question. I do agree that people want straight talk about the issues you mention, hell yes. I just think some straight talk about impeachment is necessary, too, and the one doesn't preclude the other.

Hey.. little pRicky.. notice how the CORRUPT POLITICIANS are making sure they are protected from "due process"? YOUR party was the group screaming the loudest about that.

Sadly, Dems also got on the wagon and are crying about "being raided", despite a WARRENT. Funny, politicians can engage in criminal acts while in office, but can't be prosecuted by anyone but.. uh.. politicians?

Perosonally, I find it telling that the Repugs came out screaming about the raid. I doubt there was anything in Jefferson's office that would cause too many problems for any Pugs, but once the precident is set that a warrent will expose bad politicos, the Pugs are done. Immagine the FBI hitting the office of DeLay? or Hastert? or Ney? or -any- politician.. Or the WHITE HOUSE!.

And, true to his chicken-shit colors, Shrubby makes secret the info that will put criminals behind bars. WAY TO GO SHRUBBY!! And, that ignorant shit has the gaul to say "hose who violate the law, including members of Congress, should and will be held to account." ?!?!?! This CRIMNAL says that? Clearly, there is no "office of internal affairs" over in the White House.

And this is what Bush said, "This period will provide both parties more time to resolve the issues in a way that ensures that materials relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation are made available to prosecutors in a manner that respects the interests of a co-equal branch of government."

So, I guess Jefferson gets to appear guilty for a protracted period. Bush pretty much is sealing that deal by using the words "ongoing criminal investigation" and "available to the prosecutors." Not going to be a buried piece of news for a long time to come. They'll use the one guy they have and they'll use him for a long, long time.

Joan, impeachment is a legitimate part of our legal system. Specifically, it is the ONLY legal remedy available for "high crimes and misdemeanors," as a first step.

Saying it's "bad for the country," or for Democrats to avoid talking about it for political reasons is basically an insult to the Constitution, because that is its prescribed antidote for high-level misconduct.
It was used against Clinton for lying under oath...a serious offense, but a trifle compared to spying on Americans illegally, suborning torture, and election fraud.

Political considerations are preventing Democrats from moving on impeachment, without a doubt. I can understand that, because the G.O.P. majority would block them. But I suggest it's political cowardice for a House Democrat to avoid saying,
"If it appears President Bush broke the law, it is our Constitutional duty to impeach him and allow the Senate to consider whether his actions meet the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' standard."

For the record, here's the wording from the Constitution relevant to subsequent legal proceedings: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (Article I, Section 3) I certainly look forward to criminal trials and convictions. (And whatever happens to Rove and others at any time --- so much the better.)

It is probably self-evident from my other postings on impeachment that I agree with Robert and Joan on this. 1) Robert states my view very well in saying, impeachment "...should only be based on the merits of the accusation, not on the consequences of the process. That might sound lofty and idealistic, but otherwise the Constitutional process is forfeit." If there was ever a time to ensure constitutional integrity, it is now. It is vital.

Nevertheless, it is a practical certainty that impeachment will not happen prior to 2007. That doesn't mean that, as citizens, we shouldn't do all we can to demand impeachment as a constitutional necessity. (Once again, to ensure the integrity of the Constitution which is currently being vastly corrupted.)

We have to work on many different fronts and it would be a mistake to say that one campaign negates another when it does not. But central to recovery of our republic is constitutional integrity.

#37 Robert,
Exactly!
Although....
"Joan, impeachment is a legitimate part of our legal system."
Hmmmmm....it's almost as if you're unaware of my frequent, near-hysterical rantings on that very point. Not to mention #30 above....
Wait...... you're not pullin' a 'Levy' on me, are ya, Robert??
The way you put it just made me laugh, I dunno.

But anyway.
I agree with all that...except for the "without a doubt" part. I can't say I know for sure WHY dems are not moving on it. I no longer think that's a bad idea, though; hopefully just a cautious one. We'll see I guess.

#34 Miss P,
Thanks, I googled it & found it and WOW, is THAT ever worth a read. The plot thickens. Jesus.
And Alberto Gonzalez looks like such a...I dunno...he just has such an INNOCENT look about him, doesn't he? Compared to Ridge, for example, who really looks like he was spawned in the dungeons of Orthanc, but maybe that's just me!

Joan, I meant to confirm your statement, i.e., impeachment IS a legitimate part of our legal system."

What has to be emphasized is that it is the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROSCRIBED remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors. It's a drastic step only in the sense that most presidents don't misbehave as badly as Clinton and (especially) Bush have.

We must not impeach for political reasons. At the same time, we must not refuse to impeach for political reasons. I believe we're doing that now.

Savantster,
Thanks, I just read the article you linked to, too.
The piece on DemocraticUnderground, though, is a bit more....thought-provoking!http://www.democraticund...address=132×2642180
From that piece:
"...You'd think a video of him accepting a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant would be enough, wouldn't you? But there are other facts to consider....

.... Attorney General Alberto Gonzales....authorized and executed a search of the Congressman's office. Never before has the Executive encroached on the Legislative Branch...ever. By doing this, he gained access to ALL of the Congressman's files...ALL of them. All of his papers from meetings with Democrats, with constituents...ALL of them.

Now, lest we think that Gonzales was just being "gung-ho" in the pursuit of justice, he himself demonstrates that he knew full well that he was stepping into history with this comment:

....Gonzales says special precautions were taken to make sure that all documents unrelated to the criminal investigation were left untouched, by what Gonzales called a filter team, a group of agents not connected with the Jefferson investigation.

That's right, AG Gonzales "filtered out" all of the other information not related to his deliberate fishing expedition by using anonymous sources. Let's call them "Sealed" and "sealed". And, when asked why he made this unprecedented move, rather than offer an explanation, he patronizes Congress by saying, "There, there, don't worry. I'm an honest guy...."

So now people like Hastert are getting a little "upset". Well, pardon my French, mr. speaker, but boo fuckin' hoo.
Gee, I guess this is what happens when you geniuses in congress give up all your CONSTITUTIONAL oversights on a lying, law-breaking, out-of-freakin'-control executive branch.

I said, "It is probably self-evident from my other postings on impeachment that I agree with Robert and Joan on this. 1) Robert states my view very well in saying, impeachment "...should only be based on the merits of the accusation, not on the consequences of the process. That might sound lofty and idealistic, but otherwise the Constitutional process is forfeit."... There was a 2) but I forgot what it was!

Arry,
While you're thinkin' about what #2 was, just one bit more about the Jefferson bribery thing:
the author quotes the WaPo story on Jefferson as having said
"Jefferson's woes....have undercut the Democrats' election-year assertion that Republicans have created a "culture of corruption."

Right! Well, my goodness, folks, I guess we might just as well throw in the towel now, huh? This proves it: the dems are obviously just as dirty as the repugs, no doubt about it!

Lord, I'm saved from my evil, librul ways! I'm gonna go right out & register as a republican!
Whew! Thanks, alberto, for opening our eyes to the den of corruption in the congressman's freezer!

I'm pretty stung over the convergence and convenience of some late happenings. Could this message to Congress be..."better clear off your desks...you've got 45 days."

And I've been wondering (sorry to all the good attorney's out there) who the heck has been studying the law solely to see what can be worked around and what not - according to SOMEONE'S agenda. God forbid anyone should follow the intent of the law anymore. Freaking Gonzales has been running this legal tap dance - THAT is clear to me now. DOJ is compromised. Including their statement that Hastert is not a part of the investigation that doesn't exist. Ok. Just so we know.

{Ed note: Comment deleted. Not posted by Ricky. Do NOT different names, or attempt to imitate the identity of others here! I don't have time to deal with each and every comment, so your respect to others, whether they deserve it or not --- as with Ricky --- is greatly appreciated. Thanks!}

{Ed note: Comment deleted. Not posted by Ricky. Do NOT different names, or attempt to imitate the identity of others here! I don't have time to deal with each and every comment, so your respect to others, whether they deserve it or not --- as with Ricky --- is greatly appreciated. Thanks!}

One other thought for ya Ricky (not that you necessarily have room for any actual thoughts in your brain there if not presented by Fox or DRUDGE), but I cover what I want, when I want, despite anybody else's coverage.

I tend to report things not being largely covered by everyone else, but that said, the *real* criteria for what I write about (or not) is based on whether or not I have anything unique to offer to what is already on the public record.

To that end, I guess you haven't been paying attention to my highly critical coverage of HOSTS of Democrats, including the Democratic leadership, and cretins like Linda Lamone (Dem State Election Director in MD) and Cathy Cox (Dem State Election Director in GA), just to name a few.

Given your knack for parroting the words and tactics of criminals, cretins, and America haters such as Fox "News", Drudge, Limbaugh and the entire Bush Administration, the above is likely a distinction that won't matter to you a wit, of course.

Which is why we enjoy your silly comments here at BRAD BLOG which tend to remind us all of the importance of the work we do to counter the evil-doers, operatives and America haters such as yourself.

#41 - Judge says, "We just want to ask these bastards a few questions for the record . . . impeachment is the only process to do that ? ? ?"

It might be. They will be using the bogus 'national security" excuse forever unless we set up a counter to that tactic. If the push comes to shove in an impeachment investigation there will be an acute constitutional crisis which is exactly what will be needed if it reaches that point. (Up to now, we've seen mainly an intolerable abuse of the Constitution, not a serious struggle.)

Good question. I don't know the answer (other than "the executive branch"), but I think it is pretty complicated (and not always clear), not only in the classification itself, but in the relation of classified material to congressional oversight. What is particularly out of hand, of course, is how the Bush administration is using the war powers act ("national security") to wipe out oversight entirely - It's their tool to complete the revolution of the rich and create a corporate - not Constitutional - state. - that and "9/11", of course. (There was a study mentioned by Sibel Edmonds someplace about massive extraneous "national security" classification" - much of it actually harmful to the nation.)

Congress has been giving away its responsibilities to the executive branch for decades. It has also reneged on constitutional responsibilities time after time. I hope they haven't given away so much it will be impossible to retrieve it. They may have. Then there is nothing left but submitting to a destructive corporatist agenda or revolution. I hope they recognize the necessity of retrieving it. The "imperial presidency" is a fact now and somehow that little document in the hearts of true citizens - the Constitution - will be tested. Is it a quaint "piece of paper" or does it have a living strength in its principles and purposes? That's the big question. It has to be really tested.

Ricky, you are here, because there's things here you're not getting anywhere else. That is also why I come here.

Ricky, do you watch Democracy NOW! news? Please explain to me why it's so different than ANBCBSNNX new. I am interested in your answer.

One of them is lying, which one is lying, or suppressing news??? Before you compare them, realize that ANBCBSNNXX is corporate-controlled and has commercials, Democracy NOW! is run stricty on donations from ANYBODY...people like ME and people like YOU. And no government money either, like PBS, not that they are doing a bad job lately, though. PBS seems to have fended off the Republican coop to slant the news on PBS.

Here's the deal: People who don't like the real news, call it "liberal". Its' a catch-all phrase, and when prompted for specifics, why it's liberal, they don't say why. "Liberal" means it doesn't suit someone's agenda, usually a conservative-Republican agenda. There's more and more so-called "liberals", because the people controlling everything are in the extreme minority, and they are conservative-Republicans. Everyone's a "liberal", except them, and when prompted for specifics, "what is liberal about that" or "why is he/she a liberal?", there are no specifics or even answers. You here Rush Limboob all the time saying "liberals" "liberal this" "liberal that", but notice, it's just that everything he doesn't agree with, he calls "liberal".

For Big Dan: "Liberal" is the defamatory word of choice in the Fourth Gilded Age (1982-present). In the first Gilded Age (1865-1877) it was "traitor," which meant anyone other than a Radical Republican, whjose agenda was vengeance against the South during Reconstruction. During the Second Gilded Age (1920-1929) the buzzwords were "red" and "anarchist," meaning anyone Attorney General Palmer thought was un-American.
In the Third Gilded Age (1945-1963) the bad word was "Commie" (sometimes "pinko"), meaning anyone who didn't support McCarthyite tactics or objected to the nuclear arms race.

Right-wingers and authoritarians have always needed a slanderous code word to maintain control of public opinion. Typically, it succeeds for a while, then the people being slandered are the majority.

Please pay no attention to Ricky's use of "libs." He just picked it up from Limbaugh or someone on Fox Network. In a Gilded Age context, what "liberal" really means is "someone who believes in the welfare state, in tax-and-spend government, and is soft on Communism." So it's now meaningless, because of welfare reform, tax cuts, and the death of the Soviet Union. "Liberal," as a slander, is already a dinosaur, effective for trolls to use only to the extent that we let it bother us. Please don't.

A fresh splash of water on the face in the morning is like a look at impeachment reality.

Take Fitz as an example. He has what most of us would consider ample evidence to indict Rove. But he, being circumspect, looks at the total picture. All of the circumstances that make up the reality of a criminal prosecution. He has to put himself in the mind of the potential jury, the judge, the defense lawyers, and all that. Unless he is just a junky for recklessness and fantasy.

Likewise, anyone who would contemplate an impeachment of the current president by the current rubber stamp republican congress, and who wants to be circumspect, would do the same.

That person would ask "what do the republicans, who control the House, think about impeaching Bush in an election year?". And if articles could make it out of committee and onto the floor, would it pass? And if it did, what about the Senate? Are there 66 votes for conviction on the House's articles of impeachment?

He might also consider how "well" the less intrusive censure resolution of Feingold went in the Senate. It seems that it is in committee and is not coming out. Correct? There aren't enough votes to get it out of committee, so it dies there.

If that person does not care and just wants to get busy with losing the whole shebang, impeachment could be permanently lost politically. It could seriously damage the case by forcing a non-starter now, instead of waiting until after the Phase II is done (won't be done unless dems take the House and/or Senate), NSA spy hearings, and other investigations into the lies of this regime are exposed. That person will be all about themselves, not about a sound strategy.

Anyone want to put any money on an impeachment of this republican president by this republican congress?

Then why all the fantasy? There are problems out there that can be solved, but impeachment is simply not going to happen with this congress.

I can't fathom why rational folk would spend so much time on an Alice in Wonderland hopeless political dialogue. Not here anyway. What should happen is not the same as what will happen.

For Dredd: You're absolutely correct that this Republican Congress would block an impeachment movement in its tracks.

But must every question descend into politics? Isn't there a point at which a brave legislator should stand up and say, "There is strong evidence that this man violated his oath of office and broke the law with impunity. Given that our system affords us only one remedy against presidential misconduct, that being impeachment, I call for an inquiry."???

The only argument I've heard against such a stance is based on two theses: 1) It wouldn't succeed because Republicans control Congress, and 2) It's dangerous, because it gives the G.O.P. a talking point in an election year."

These are political points only. Even if 100% true, they reduce impeachment to just another political issue and rob it of its legal and Constitutional function.

Would we say, "Fitzgerald should hold off on his indictments until Democrats get control?" Or, "It's the wrong time to put DeLay (or Ney, Lay, Skilling, Rove, etc.) on trial, because Republicans will say this is all political?" Was it wrong for John Conyers to file his 102-page report on the 2004 election, even though he had to know Congress wouldn't do anything with it?

Speaking truth to power shouldn't be a matter of waiting for the right moment.

Here is a link to a memorandum filed in the federal court that granted the search warrant.

It offers various arguments that the search was illegal, and requests that the documents be returned.

RLM #63

You said "For Dredd: You're absolutely correct that this Republican Congress would block an impeachment movement in its tracks." If I remember correctly, they have done that to several proposed articles of impeachment already, so "would do so" is not as accurate as "have and will continue to do so".

You said "But must every question descend into politics?". That is a straw man, because it assumes political science is a "descent". There is nothing wrong with politics.

You said "Isn't there a point at which a brave legislator ... ". Here again another straw man. It is not a debate over brave legislators doing your bidding and cowards not doing your bidding. That is "descending" below the belt.

You said further that your "brave legislator [who] should stand up and say, 'There is strong evidence that this man violated his oath of office and broke the law with impunity. Given that our system affords us only one remedy against presidential misconduct, that being impeachment, I call for an inquiry.'" which assumes that there are no inquiries ongoing that have been stalled by the republican controllers. It is just not accurate to say there are none. And it is certainly an illusion to adhere to a demonstrably false notion that bringing it up has not been done.

And then you say "The only argument I've heard against such a stance is based on two theses: 1) It wouldn't succeed because Republicans control Congress, and 2) It's dangerous, because it gives the G.O.P. a talking point in an election year."

These are political points only. Even if 100% true, they reduce impeachment to just another political issue and rob it of its legal and Constitutional function."

This falsely frames the issue as one of legal and constitutional import, the holy place, and falsely places the political aspect of it in the devil's hands. That sounds like a religion. Politics is not evil, nor is legal and constitutional holy and at the other end of the good/bad spectrum.

They all work together at it is sheer fantasy to seperate them like that. Democracy has political, legal, and constitutional underpinnings and none should be religionized or sanitized by fantasy. An assertion that the legal and constitutional are more holy than the political is a straw man in addition to being divisive. The reality is that politics ... dealing with what the folks at home will think about it, is part and parcel of the equation, and rightly so. The people at home do matter.

You say "Would we say, 'Fitzgerald should hold off on his indictments until Democrats get control?' Or, 'It's the wrong time to put DeLay (or Ney, Lay, Skilling, Rove, etc.) on trial, because Republicans will say this is all political?' Was it wrong for John Conyers to file his 102-page report on the 2004 election, even though he had to know Congress wouldn't do anything with it?".

More straw men. I used Fitz as an example of a circumspect prosecutor. If you had fairly characterized him as I used him in my text you would have simply said "would Fitzgerald try to impeach the president". And to answer that fairly, you would have noted what I wrote which is he would ask himself "would the jury convict". And the "jury" in the impeachment realm is the republican controlled congress. And the answer you yourself gave is "no". So Fitzgerald would do the opposite of what you mischaracterize him as doing. You yourself characterized the criminal prosecutions as different from impeachment and then lumped them all in one basket afterwards. A bit muddy.

Anyway, there will be no impeachment of the republican president by the republican rubber stamp congress. So your tenacious adherence to an argument for action in a process that will not be done to fruition is still quite puzzling. The argument that we should do something in an effort that will not come to fruition is a hopeless and timewasting tactic.

What we should do, instead, is focus on the November election in sensible ways so we can stop the republican dictatorship by dividing its fascist power in half or so.

Your final drum roll "Speaking truth to power shouldn't be a matter of waiting for the right moment" misframes the issue. The issue is impeachment, not speaking truth to power. We can speak truth to power anytime, and impeaching or not impeaching does not stop us from doing so.

And as for the timing of impeachment, there is no choice but to wait for the proper moment.

Dredd, the key word in your posting is "action" (4th paragraph from the end). You define the word as an actual move toward impeachment by Congress. I would allow for candid statements by legislators that such a course might be justified by the evidence, whether the actual process in begun or not, and I would define that as "action."

You misconstrued my point about Fitzgerald. It was simply that by indicting Libby, Fitz has shown an imperviousness to the political consequences of his actions, in the same manner as Archibald Cox did during Watergate. Fitzgerald knows he could be fired at any time (as Cox was), and he also knows Bush could pardon Libby in the end. But he's doing what the law requires...as his public duty. If a member of Congress believes Bush guilty of impeachable offenses, I maintain it's his public duty (whether politically prudent or not) to say so.

This sounds so much like the debate over Kerry's concession. He said, "There weren't enough votes there to change the outcome," and conceded. That was a political decision (you say "there's nothing wrong with politics," I submit that Kerry's actions are Exhibit A of everything that's wrong with it). I can't prove it, but I'm positive Kerry wanted to remain viable for 2008, and felt that challenging the vote (if he had, it would surely have exposed the fraud long ago) would leave him with a "sore loser" tag. He acted selfishly, and unless he has a high-minded rationale for his conduct (I'm still waiting, John), it can only be described as political.

Is Hastert really worried that Gonzales is going to go through HIS office like he did in Jefferson's?

What's going on here? Did I miss something, or is this just a ploy to show that the Republicans are bipartisan!

It drives me crazy when people say that these guys are in power because they're smart. Gonzales has to be brought to justice because he has stupidly read the law, not because he has smartly outmaneuvered anyone. The reason they have to keep breaking the law is because they broke it previously.

That goes for all of them. They're all standing around with their pants down! They all have to be impeached so their stupidity can be exposed, and seriously contemplated. Yes, you too Mr. "architect".

GEEZ...is that woman hot or what,beautiful in every photo that I have seen...she is one of many keys to exposing the lies of the current goverment,repugs,dems alike...hope she has a good security detail...
Brad....a pain in the ass to have to scroll down to the last message to post a comment................

Everything everyone has said here is very interesting. You all bring up some good points and I like how everyone is able to share their opinions and respect the views of others.

In response to something Dredd said earlier:

"Bush will be impeached in the House, but will not be convicted in the Senate. The latter takes 2/3 of the Senate and there will not be enough votes."

Something somebody on the DU forum said about the "2/3rd Senate vote roadblock" was this: Once the Democrats get control of the House and Senate, but still don't have a super majority in the Senate for impeachment votes, they will still have power to hold hearings and do extensive investigations. Things they aren't able to do now since they are in the minority. If you keep in mind all the Republicans who are under investigation, all those whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds and Russell Tice who know of wrongdoing by the executive branch and some of the complicity amongst the Congressional Republicans, and if we point out to the American public how it was the Republicans in the House and Senate who have been constantly obstructing any oversight and investigations into the various matters, when the Dems do their extensive investigations, it will allow us to find MANY guilty parties in both the executive branch and the Congress. Once the American public becomes aware of all this and if the investigative committees manage to drag out enough damaging and incriminating evidence, the people will rise up and DEMAND that Bush and his administration be replaced. Also, keep in mind that the Democrats didn't have a super majority in the Senate when Nixon was in office either, but Nixon got so scared of an impending impeachment that he just resigned to avoid it altogether. Having the Dems in power will also mean they would have the ability to expell members of the Senate who were involved in any criminal activities and keeping stuff covered up. If we win back enough of the governorships in the states where some of these criminal Republicans are from, it will help increase our numbers in the Senate. Another thing the Dems can do after all the extensive investigations, hearings and criminal proceedings have begun is make a deal with the Senate Republicans and tell them, "If you want to stay in the Senate past 2008, and in some cases stay out of prison, you can vote with us on this impeachment." Once it's pointed out to them what happened to their buddies in 2006, they'll want to go ahead and vote with the Dems to convict BushCo on impeachment so they wouldn't have to worry about the Dems gaining a super majority under a Democratic president after 2008. One that could stifle filibusters and judicial impeachments on the SCOTUS. Also, once the Dems are in control and the Republicans are no longer in power, they might not feel the need to vote in lockstep anymore and perhaps act more independent. When Nixon realized that a big enough margin of his own party didn't support him anymore, that's ultimately what made him make the decision to resign. In my opinion, the best case scenario would be this: Cheney is indicted and resigns, Bush is forced to appoint McCain as VP, then Bush resigns and takes a pardon, and McCain can be Jerry Ford until January 2009. Please think about everything I said.

For Independent______Progressive: I agree that the best argument for voting for Democrats this fall is that gaining control of Congress will give them investigative and subpoena power they now lack. Even if they don't reach the two-thirds required (as Dredd predicts) the investigations alone will impeach Bush in the court of public opinion. That's worth a lot.

My problem with this line of thinking is that Democrats are running away from it. "Oh no, we're not going to impeach the president," says Pelosi. Even Conyers has avoided the word, as if it's poison to give Republicans a talking point. Well, guess what, folks? Today's Times has a front-page story that the G.O.P. is using Pelosi's potential House Speaker's role as grounds for reelecting Republicans. So what good does avoiding the issue do for Democrats?

At some point, somebody on Capitol Hill is going to have to do the right thing. To hell with what some political pundit thinks is dangerous or foolish. Say it out loud: "If President Bush has committed impeachable offenses, it is our Constitutionally mandated duty to explore impeachment. It's the only remedy we have." If anyone asks whether this will hurt their chances on Election Day, answer, "So
be it. We're defending the Constitution, period."